Victor Duchovni:
> > > On the other hand, for well-formed headers, the
> > > comment is not part of the message-id: for example:
> > >
> > > 2008-11-06T01:11:19-0500 amnesiac postfix/cleanup[13756]: AE620EF8001:
> > > message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (added by [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > >
> > > Should Postfix make any effort to log the above message differently?
> >
> > How would one decide that a (message-id) header is not mangled?
> > This would require parsing the string, counting the "address"
> > tokens, and if there is only one "address" token, use that as the
> > logged message ID, otherwise log the entire original string.
>
> Real-life examples include:
>
> Message-Id: News_03/11/2008 16:11:15_PR Newswire Brasil<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <42M0XSEC17ENNJN27.1103.753798 @lowbehold.com>
> Message-ID: <2008-11-07 10:43:57 TheSystem@>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] & Cloppenburg Website>
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
>
> So the "address" token parser would have to be fairly "liberal".
I'm not sure if cosmetic concerns about Message-ID logging alone
would justify the implementation of another RFC822 parser.
The existing code is already as liberal as it gets; unlike a
compiler, it doesn't throw away "unexpected" tokens. But it also
doesn't represent whitespace between tokens, so it can't un-parse
three of the above examples.
Wietse
> > But I wonder if it is really worth the trouble.
>
> I was thinking that we could just trim comments.
>
> --
> Viktor.
>
> Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
> Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
>
> To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
> http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
> send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
> "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
>
>
